New British tank prototype begins trials

That as well if the MOD can’t find buyers for them apart from Ukraine or gifted too them

We have a history of selling old tanks to Jordan, but they are receiving ex-UAE Leclercs by way of replacement. After CR3 conversion, how many good-ish CR2s will be left to sell or gift? Not too many, I suspect.

I’ve wonder if the Jordanian C1 could be candidates for upgrades should we need numbers in hurry. The C3 turret was supposed to be versatile so it could be fitted to other NATO tanks, not sure how portable the other upgrades would be to a C1. I appreciate its not an ideal upgrade, but where else are there 400 tanks UK could access easily and at short notice. And if you can shoehorn in the same powerpack/transmission, turret, APS, radios, targeting system etc you create a high level of common parts. And whilst the armor is behind the C3 its still very effective especially with reactive armor on top and APS. Using a strategy from the 1930’s prepare for war, so get a C1, prototype the upgrade and test the upgrade, identify who will do the upgrade (ie shadow factory concept) then you have a prepackage upgrade ready to go and can execute if needed. We started WW2 with less tanks than Germany but our preparations and ability ramp up production was a far more important factor than the number we started with.

It would make sense to store the remaining C2 knowing there’s pre packaged proven upgrade that could be applied should we need it.

Of course the best option would be a new tank but that’s very unlikely to happen.

There are certainly worse ideas, but it would be expensive and time consuming returning even a portion of those 40-year-old tanks.

Better to spend the money and effort accelerating Challenger 3, expanding the order to at least 200 (and preferably the full 400+ fleet, or whatever is left of it), and identifying what will come after.

The question of whether heavy armour still has a place on the battlefields of the future needs to be answered before we start pushing for a new BAOR. Would drones and a heavy gun for Boxer or Ajax make more sense? Who knows

With you Callum. 200 seems like a good pool for such a major asset for 4 tank groups plus a smaller reserve. I know nothing on this it’s just a gut feel and seems a shame that they let the numbers deteriorate to just 148.

It was more of an outside the box thinking based on rearming quickly. Personally I think building or upgrading 100s upon 100s of tanks which may sit in storage is not the best plan. But if you’ve done the ground work to upgrade or build from new, tested the design, identified who will build, who all the suppliers are etc Then your in good position to ramp up production. And arguably in better position than having 400 tanks with no plan to produce more.

This is not a new concept in the 1930s we identified factories that would switch to military production if needed. That turned out to be more important than having more tanks than Germany when war broke. We were soon out producing Germany who struggled to replace what they had.

The Jordanian CR1 conundrum was discussed at great length on what is now X – according to those in the know it is likely that enquiries were made about the status of the fleet but nothing came of it.The exact reason wasn’t given but it was narrowed down to either the Jordanian Govt not willing to play ball and release them for refurb, or the poor material state of them meaning it would not be cost effective.TBH it may have been a combination of the two but the facts will come out in time.

I’d be surprised if the Jordanians didn’t want to gift them, we gifted them in the first instance. Probably there was better options throughout Europe. It was unlikely to be just UK paying to bring these back into service and with various other tanks more readily available better to focus attention elsewhere.

I was the MoD Equipment Support Manager for CR1 after it had been wirthdrawn from service and folowed my predecesssor by finishing off the disposals – most went to Jordan as you know. You are talking about a vehicle that was devloped from the Chieftain with design work done in the 1970s, built c.1982-1990, in-service with UK 1983-2001, sold to Jordan and in service with them 1999-2022. Jordan has replaced them with ex-UAE Leclerc and ex-Italian Centauro whelled tank destroyers.

So now take a tank that has done service over 40 years and been pensioned off by first and now second user – and give it a new lease of life for the British Army! That’s not going to fly. Some suggested that Jordan might like to gift those 400 tanks to Ukraine, pretty much as is, but with a quick, basic and cheap refurb (but that didn’t happen).

MoD does not have the cash to produce any more than 148 CR1s so how could they be persuaded to upgrade 400 CR1s to CR3 as well – but if they did, then what – store them – where – no room at Ashchurch for that number of additional tanks – who would crew them in time of war – we don’t have 400 spare tank crews (ie about 7 armoured regiments of manpower – or would they all be used for the most massive Attrition Reserve?

I would much rather maximise CR3 numbers from more CR2 donor vehicles (in fact convert every CR2 that we have that can meet the Minimum Acceptable Presentation Standard) for which there is an established engineering programme. Retain the third armoured regiment that we have today. Boost the Attrition Reserve. But all this costs big money and requires additional manpower to be added back, so it probably won’t happen.

Lots of good sense Graham. I suppose the UK can’t ask for their gifted Ch2s back, to bolster numbers and have them replaced by Leopards or others? Or the UK order a Leopard tank batch (40) for themselves? It’ll be a mixed fleet but interoperability with lots of European allies.

What!? That would be terrible for the Ukrainians – they are getting very good use out of their 13 CR2s as ‘sniper tanks’ – they absolutely love them. It would be the biggest diplomatic fail you could imagine to ask for them back

Why would we want 13 CR2s to be returned? What for? What has suddenly happened since we judged we could spare them. Are our needs greater than Ukraine’s?

We have 213 active list CR2s [plus a good number (maybe 100-117) on the inactive list (probably in bad condition)].

We need to give 148 tanks to RBSL in batches between now and 2030 for the CR3 upgrade. Thats do-able whilst keeping a good number of CR2s back for the soon-to-be two armoured regiments, trg org etc.

Why do we want a tiny fleet of Leopard 2 (not enough for one ard regt), when we have CR2 and are getting CR3?

It was just a hypothetical but as you say it isn’t really justifiable and not a good like either so it’s okay to cancel my silly suggestion ..lol. Have to admit your Ch2 numbers do suggest that pool is quite a bit bigger than the 148 Ch3’s so there’s room for more Ch3’s if the need arises and the monies are there.

Are some people thinking we will only upgrade 148 tanks because there are only 148 CR2s? Surely not. We have 213 CR2s on the active list (was 227 – that figure published for the last 14 years – but gave 14 to Ukraine early last year) and more on the inactive list.

Up to recently 43 of the 386 tanks originally purchased have been scrapped (sometime in the 2010-2014 period, for reasons unknown), but MoD recently declared that a handful more (4 or 5?) have been scrapped. Not sure if more have been scrapped over the period 2014 -2023 but not been declared publicly.

Pedantically, I think the term ‘scrapped’ is being used incorrectly – I am sure they mean that such tanks have been categorised as Beyond Economic Repair (BER) as I have not heard of any scrap metal merchants turning up to Ashchurch!

I think the need for more than 148 tanks (just two armoured regiments) is clear (after all, the army decided upon and bought 386 tanks to meet the post-Cold War requirement after the Options for Change defence review). But the money is not there!

I’m not suggesting we actually upgrade 400 c1s now. But instead like we did in the 1930 have a plan to up arm quickly should hostilities commence. As you say its expensive to have 400 tanks ready to roll. But if you have reached a point where we have proven path to get a tank into production or upgrade then you massively shorten the time to get it rolling off the production lines.

War is won by being able to out produce your enemy and right now my concern is we have no plan to be able to rearm at pace.

Germany had more tanks at the start of WW2 but its ability to replace was woeful.

Maybe 400 c1s aren’t the best plan as you say they maybe too far gone, but I sincerely hope our political class actually has a plan.

We certainly need a rearmament plan.

To take just the tank example for now: We could start by upgrading many more than 148 CR2 tanks to the CR3 model.
We have 213 tanks on the active list and maybe 100+ on the inactive list (which will be in poor shape with many parts lost to cannibalisation) but they should be assessed for suitability and maybe we could make 2 tanks out of 3 ie get a further 60 or 70 to an acceptable presentation state for upgrade to CR3. Thus we might be able to push another 120 or 130 to the RBSL build line on top of the 148 contracted for. This is speculation as I do not know for sure the number of tanks on the non-active list or their condition.

268 or 278 tanks would be enough for a well resourced division with a reasonably sized attrition reserve. To send more armour than one division (ie to resource more AS90s, Warriors, B vehs etc etc) would be beyond our capability.

I guess the biggest issue is hull stress, anything that a can be unbolted can be replaced(in theory). But cracks in the hulls need to be properly assessed, this would require stripping the Hull then putting it through a non destructive tests NDT to detect cracks and fractures. Then assess if these can be repaired. If there’s known stress failure points, then these could be reworked without testing.

Are all the C2s stored in an environment where corrosion isn’t an issue.

There’s one further source if C2s, Oman has 38 I believe. I assume we’re offering a C3 upgrade but if that doesn’t fly then, depending on the condition, repurchasing them could be an option. I have no idea what condition they’re in.

Another factor is if the war in Ukraine carries on and Oman is looking to replace them they could end up.being repurchase and sent there.

I don’t know if Babcock who now operate the former 18 Base Wksp REME/ABRO Bovington site do Base Overhauls or similar on the entire UK tAFV fleet – I would hope they did. In the days when this was done by in-house personnel, then every square inch of the stripped out hull was carefully looked at especially the welds using NDT. Re-welding was done if required. This was all standard procedure.

Are all CR2s in CHE? – I doubt it. You must assume Defence is well-resourced! Some CHE exists at BATUS, Ashchurch and at least one of the two depots in Germany. Pretty sure no CHE exists for tanks (or other AFVs) in the Field Force or the Trg Org. Where CHE exists at the afore-mentioned places it is by no means certain that any or all CR2s located there are in it. Other kit may be in the CHE. I just don’t have that info.

You seem keen for us to get more CR2s – not sure why. Even if HMG increases the number worked to CR3 standard up to 200 (very unlikely), then there are sufficient donor tanks on the active list (ie 213) without buying the Omani tanks. They don’t have to be in fabulous condition before sumbmission to the RBSL CR3 build line, just up to the Minimum Acceptable Presentation Standard (don’t ask me for the definition – of course, I don’t have that).

I’m not assuming there’s additional resources but like airframes you only fly airworth airframes. I would hope the Army has a minimum standard. The good news fro. What you’re saying is we should have a very good appreciation of where the C2 hulls get stressed.

I’m not desperate to get more C2, my thinking is along the same lines as previous comments. We have a ready to go upgrade for C2s so if we have access to them we can get nearly 40 C3 tanks quickly if we needed to.

Thanks. The Minimum Acceptable Presentation Standard (MAPS) is nothing to do with routine operation of the tanks – it is a standard specifically relating to suitability of a donor vehicle for a major upgrade such as conversion to CR3. For example it would not matter if certain assemblies, sub-assemblies or components are missing or do not work if those are to be replaced by new items in the upgrade. Theoretically a tank could possibly be missing its entire turret! [Although I have not seen the MAPS document for this work, of course]

In routine operation of CR2 very different criteria are applied – you’ve got to be able to use the thing – and in my day a tank was either battleworthy, fully fit – or is unserviceable (and needs work by crew and/or REME).

Sadly I remain sceptical that HMG will sanction more than 148 tanks to be upgraded – as this was not stated even as a vague aspiration after IR Refresh 23 and DCP 23, which specifically looked at lessons from the war in Ukraine. The Government thinks our ‘armoured division’ only needs 112 tanks and a very small Attrition Reserve, possibly 15-20 tanks or so.

Thanks. That makes sense.

On the numbers I’m not bothered if we get only 148 if we have a plan. When things start to turn ugly to upgrade the rest rapidly then acquire more to upgrade or build new.

Of course its not that simple Russia in WW2 built a lot of tanks but couldn’t use them because it had not built trucks to transport men, ammunition fuel, food etc. American and British ended up supplying these a long with huge volumes of other items and equipment, only then could the Russian army advance.

Additional question if I may. If RBSL could fit the C3 turret, Trophy, a new power pack and transmission to the C1 just where would that tank rate in your opinion. Let’s assume the c1 has just rolled off the productionl line. Its a bit of fantasy tank fleet question.

As our American friends might say it sounds like it might be a bit like putting lipstick on a pig.

There is such a huge difference between CR1 and CR2, relatively little commonality, and CR2 is the base for CR3. It would take a lot of effort to properly work out how your hybrid would pan out.

Assuming that your mix is doable, it is easier to assess whether there are any weaknesses by retaining the CR1 hull albeit upgraded by better (CR3 standard) power pack and transmission. The biggest issue would be below-par hull armour but that could be offset by add-on TES armour. The suspension units would be sub-par, as would I think the track. Perhaps modern replacements might easily fit. The hull interior would have to be modified to stow single piece 120mm smoothbore rounds (as does the CR2 hull interior).

Who knows – it might just make a fair tank, less good than CR3 but better than standard CR1. It would be an expensive and time-consuming conversion, that’s for sure.

Thanks for that. Gives a good perspective it doesn’t sound like a good option. Like you say the details are where it would likely fall over. We’ve seen some very cobbled together armoured vehicles from Ukraine and Russia. If we don’t get our act together we’ll likely end up doing the same.

Your approach certainly caused pause for thought. By having a very small equipment inventory and mostly unmodernised – then radical solutions need to be explored that could be implemented quickly if WW3 loomed.

A warfighting division with just 112 tanks is barely credible, especially as the Attrition Reserve (15-25?) will be so small.

Just read a Dive story with pictures how Jordan placed 2 chieftain tanks in the Red Sea for a diving experience they look the business

A good place for those old warhorses.

Better than under a cutters torch ,Hatches open full of marine life GM

Forces News tonight Chal 3 put through its paces quite interesting Farouk

Tommo,
I had a look on their youtube website, couldn’t find it.

Forces Net on Forces News Chal 3 off to Germany for final trials one thing mentioned in the write up is the weight of the Chal 3 could it be a hindrance write up has a few Phots of the Chal 3 Farouk

Thanks, just had a butchers .

Your welcome

But Farouk, that would mean we had a massive tank capability gap for 5 years. Surely the politicos are not that dumb? (sarcastic comment, obvs). Especially as General War is possible/likely/highly likely?

Yes. Of course , next defence review with more cuts.

True. The Braveheart upgrade for AS90 would have been excellent, but it was dropped because some South African ammunition was not up to scratch! Well, buy some ammo from elsewhere!
Even the mighty and modern K9 cannot fire 3 rounds in 10 seconds as AS90 could.

Yes I was at the rsa when brave heart was there . There is enough As90 still to equip 2 units you would think an upgrade would have been cheaper than a dozen trucks with turrets on that can’t even use nato propellant and has no manual operation if the automatic systems fail it’s a joke

There was money earmarked for the Braveheart upgrade and the Contract had been awarded in 1999, ie over 20 years ago. I understand it was cancelled because the South African ammunition mooted did not match the new IM remit – but surely we could have got IM ammunition from elsewhere?

“BAE Systems was awarded a contract to upgrade 96 of the British Army’s 179 AS90s with a 155mm / 52-calibre extended-range ordnance / modular charge system (ERO/MCS). The upgraded AS90s were expected to enter service in 2003, but the programme was halted while a system study was being conducted”.

The upgrade at £75m for 96 guns was very inexpensive. With further upgrades over the years Braveheart AS90 would have been more than a match for the Korean K9 Thunder (which so many want the British Army to have next) and better in at least one regard – AS90 can do burst fire of 3 rds in 10seconds (K9 takes 15 seconds and the Koreans found it impossible to achieve 10s).

You are perhaps in a minority to be critical of Archer but I follow your reasons, although I understand that it can fire NATO propellants as well as the unique type you mention.

It would be interesting to see how archer can remove individual increments to adjust the propellant charge in its magazine system I work at the school of artillery you won’t find many in favor archer and would rather upgrade As90 or purchase K9

Fair point. I doubt a highly automated system can adjust bagged charge increments. Its not a perfect sytem. We should have upgraded AS90 to Braveheart spec years ago – it was a very cheap job – just needed to find the right IM to go with it.

With further incremental upgrades it would be as good if not better than K9 – even the original AS90 has a quicker burst fire rate.

Morning Graham, back during the heady days of BAOR, I believe we rather hoped the Warsaw pact would be gentleman enough to give us three months notice of war, so we could scramble about calling up reservists, repairing Armour and getting the logistics taps turned back on, in order to get match fit….

Thanks John. The Russians effectively gave us all plenty of notice they were planning to invade Ukraine – about 11 months notice!

Wiki: “In March and April 2021, prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Armed Forces began massing thousands of personnel and military equipment near Russia’s border with Ukraine and in Crimea, representing the largest mobilisation since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.[37][38] This precipitated an international crisis due to concerns over a potential invasion. Satellite imagery showed movements of armour, missiles, and heavy weaponry towards the border.[39][40] The troops were partially withdrawn by June 2021,[41] though the infrastructure was left in place. A second build-up began in October 2021, this time with more soldiers and with deployments on new fronts; by December over 100,000 Russian troops were massed around Ukraine on three sides, including Belarus from the north and Crimea from the south”.[

A fair point but we did have four armoured divisions in place (three after 2 Div was moved to UK in 1982), and we had all recced our initial OPLOCs. All kit at least at 70% availability. Ammunition well forward in depots etc. Restrictions on numbers allowed back to UK on leave/courses. Many major exercises held – CPX, CFX, FTX – with TA units. Readiness tested by ORTs (Ex Active Edge) ie crash out exercises. NEO plans made to move dependants home etc.

We don’t have all the elements mentioned above today.

I don’t think Russia could invade a NATO country without some indicators being flagged or at very short notice. Ukraine had 11 months notice of Russian troops massing on their border.

900 Cheftains, how many we serviceable? I remember the L60 and H30 cyclinder liners could anything so simple be made some complicated

I could not guess how many of those 900 Chieftains were servicable at various times from 1966 (ISD) – but it helped that the tank was regularly base overhauled and also upgraded (not the same thing).

The L60 Powerpack was certainly an issue especially in the early days. A pity that multifuel was forced by NATO at which point RR withdrew from the process, and we ended up with a Leyland unit, developed from a bus engine I believe.

You are right about the cylinder linings being an issue – they were pressure fitted and coolant leaks within the cylinder block were common, causing white smoke to often billow from the exhaust. In the late 1970s, engine design changed with the introduction of Belzona which was used to improve the lining seals. 

Still, reliability was never ‘up to German standards’. REME guys and tank crew worked all hours to keep availabilty levels up.

I remember the company who used to.make the L60 cylinders. I visited them a couple of times they constantly had orders for them. The liner itself was a good piece if engineering but complex with spines and ports machine into it. Next to RR or Volvo liner it looked over engineered though. Like you say the nature of the unit being multi fuel unit.

GM,

Thanks for the info. Based upon your previous responses/past experience, should presume that the balance of CR2s (213-148=65), will be scrapped after completion of CR3 conversion contract, regardless of condition?

Not necessarily, they might be donated to museums, or put in storage facilities (a few old CR2 hulls are currently rusting in storage), or they’ll be expended as targets, or used as training aids.

We don’t keep kit for long after it has been formally declared ‘Obsolete’. We don’t have the space or the money required to do that.[It’s incredible how many people think we must have lots of Chieftains or CR1s sitting in a shed at Ashurch ready for WW3!]. Obsolete kit gets disposed of ASAP, regardless of condition.

Disposal priorities are 1st – try to sell (usually at auction); 2nd – gift the equipment; 3rd – scrap (last option, worse choice, as it generally costs you to scrap something).

[I disposed of the CR1 tank fleet as just one part of a wider job]

Gifting includes (as Dern says) donating tanks to: friendly impoverished and desperate countries (Ukraine); to museums; to a few units as gate guards; to specialised units (Shrivenham, dstl) as an R&D platform; to REME Trg Org Lyneham as recovery hulks; to various ranges as targets.

BTW, we have more than 213 CR2s – just that only 213 are on the active list – ie assigned to a role.

Apologies, but wouldn’t any sentient being realize the value of attrition/war reserve stocks of high value equipment? Could it really be that expensive to provide environmentally controlled storage and minimal maintenance for high value equipment? The Yanks and the Orcs have embraced that concept.

We have always had Attrition Reserve stocks (used to be called War Maintenance Reserve, WMR) of in-service high value equipment. In the army area that exists for AFVs and artillery, but I am not sure about other equipment, such as soft-skinned vehicles, small arms etc.

As I said we do not hold Obsolete equipment (equipment that has been formally declared ‘Obsolete’) – that kit is disposed of ASAP by sale, gifting or scrapping in that order (scarapping is a last resort, done only if sale or gifting does not fully do the job).

Hence (taking just a tank example) that is why we have no Centurion, Chieftain or CR1 tanks in storage for future war use. They are all Obsolete, out of service and are long since gone.

Tank example. Of course we do have a number of CR2s in the Attrition Reserve as that is not an Obsolete equipment (far from it, it is in-service). In a time when we had 386 CR2s (that was the number originally ordered and delivered), then that Attrition Reserve would have been impressively large (for the UK!), even allowing for there being then more than 3 armoured regiments (tank battalions).
Now that we have only 213 active CR2s, following Cameron’s austerity budget cuts of 2010, then the Attrition Reserve of CR2s is much smaller, and based at the vehicle depot in Ashchurch.

At Ashchurch there is also the Repair Pool – a pool of equipment for a unit to draw from to replace a CR2 that is away for a lengthy time on Base Overhaul. In extremis (General War) the Repair Pool could be offered up to bolster the Attrition Reserve.

The British Army has had use of some MoD Controlled Humidity Environment (CHE) hangers for vehicle storage for many years (at least 25) – and may even have been a CHE pioneer.

There is some CHE hangers at: the vehicle depot in Germany (Athlone Barracks, Paderborn and/or Ayrshire Barracks, Mönchengladbach); at BATUS in Canada; and some at Ashchurch (more is being built there under a large modernisation plan).
Of course only a percentage of kit gets stored in CHE (taut budget) and many are parked up in old style sheds.

My mind boggles at the notion of keeping Chieftains (1950s design) and CR1s (1970s design) for war use in the 2020s and beyond. Clearly the Orcs keep kit that old in storage for use in a major war – but how many western armies do?

Morning Graham, is there any news on if these Ch2s have seen any action and success? Were they able to retrieve the damaged Ch2? Wonder if the UK would ever buy any light tanks, like Ascod based UK Brooker or uparm a Ajax or Boxer with Cockerill 105/120?

Hi John,
Back in the day, for as long as I can remember AFVs (including MBTS, obvs) had a periodic Base Overhaul (BOH) done by 18 Base Wksp REME at Bovington or 23 Base Wksp REME in Germany.
Roughly every 7 years but it depended on mileage as well. Tanks were received at the Bse Wksp with all loose CES (incl jerricans, shovels etc) and documentation. CES was checked and stored. Everything was stripped off the vehicle and sent down refurb lines – or was replaced. Hull was pressure washed, all welds checked for cracks and rewelded if required.
Vehicle was then built back with mix of refurbished and new replacement assemblies, sub assemblies and components. All mods outstanding were done including some major ones. Vehicle was resprayed. Docs updated, strike plate stamped, CES fitted. Returned to a happy customer (who had stood the loss with a tank drawn from the Repair Pool) as good as new.
But it was very expensive.

Fast forward – 23 Base closed as the army started to draw down in Germany. 18 Base renamed ABRO Bovington. A quicker more affordable but equally effective overhaul process was implemented called Base Inspection and Repair (BIR).

Fast forward some more – Babcock now runs the base workshop at Bovington. This after my time so I don’t know what they do – BOH, BIR or no equivalent periodic very thorough refurb?

A handful of tanks would not be put through BOH or BIR – if they had a major underlying problem – a distorted hull or maybe a burnt out hull and turret interior. But few and far between, very rare. It must be well over 97% of tanks that could not be refurbished and upgraded. Missing equipment or parts is not necessarily a bar to a CR2 getting the CR3 conversion treatment – depends what it is. There will be a stated minimum acceptable presentation standard that sets this out.

Upgrades – a somewhat different subject. As mentioned mods were embodied in-house at BOH or BIR. Very major upgrades would be done more often at the OEM. Look up Chieftain on Wikipedia – it had loads of upgrades and each one caused the tank to be assigned a new Mk number.

For some reason this Upgrades regime did not happen for CR1 or CR2. Neither were substantially upgraded by the manufacturer. A crying shame. I am envious that other countries (US, Germany) do frequent significant upgrades to their tanks – and we dropped the ball.
The CR2 LEP (now CR3) programme puts right decades of neglect and does all the upgrades in one fell swoop rather than incrementally throughout its life. But the cost and the time to do it is high – one reason the numbers have been limited to 148.

GM,
Hmmm…rather the case of ‘pay me now, or pay me later,’ or alternatively, ‘penny wise, pound foolish.’ Do you presume the genius responsible for the change received a promotion and/or bonus? 🤔😉

There is an absolute obsession with contracting out services (standard arrangment or a PFI) that used to be done in-house and very well. Once, on this site, I listed all the ones I knew about and others added to the list.

The first contractorised operation that I recall being officers’ and WOs & sergeants messes becoming contractor operated – must have been about 30 – 35 years ago. We all moaned about it based on the numerous disadvantages we saw as ‘customers’.

Its not just soft backroom support areas either – army recruiting is in the hands of contractors, provision of much of the tank transporter service and much of the air-air tanker service are contractor operated. It’s totally mad. When contractors cock up as in Capita with army recruiting, they are rewarded by a renewed contract when the first one expires.

I had not heard that proposal. Tank killers or Tank Destroyers (TD) have some merit. They augment MBTs when they are in short supply and cost a lot less to buy and operate than tanks. They can be useful for flank protection. Most now think of a TD as being a tank cannon on a wheeled chassis, as would be the case with a Boxer TD, but they can be ATGWs on tracked chassis (as was CVR(T) STRIKER) or wheeled chassis.

Given that we will only have 2 armoured regiments then Boxer TDs would be useful to augment this meagre number of tanks.

Thx. I’ve lost the link where I found the reference, which was at the end of a list of proposed new Boxer variants. Sounds like it would be a practical way of augmenting our tank numbers, and if it used ATGWs might be relatively quick to implement.

CVR(T) STRIKER was a great piece of kit – a Tank Destroyer with 5 long range Swingfires in launcher bins on the roof and 5 reloads inside. Was withdrawn years ago and never replaced. Criminal!

Looked it up on wiki; as you say, smart piece of kit. Obsoleted by man portable Javelin I guess. Looking at Ukraine I would say we would want to replace it. There is a bigger choice of missiles these days; and platforms too – Boxer or Ares maybe, even Bulldog 🙂

Except that we didn’t mount 5+5 of the longer range Javelin on a small, nimble, tracked, armoured chassis!

The platforms you mention are inferior to the CVR(T) platform on the grounds of size, weight, signature, supportability and cost.

I think UK should face the fact that the voters culture don’t care much for defence and in such circumstances what matters is the minimum the nuclear deterrent and Royal Navy/AF.

The 2 brigades are more political then military support.
Basically Brigade 2 being the replacement of Brigade 1.

Yes, BATUS tanks have gone to Germany, helped to enable the Cabrit commitment.

Thanks Daniele

For the benefit of other readers, CABRIT is the operations name for the British troops in Estonia, currently a battle group of c 700-900 troops (an armoured infantry batallion of close to 600.plus a Scimitar or Jackal recon squadron and other small combat support or combat service units, the latter being transport, supply, REME recovery/repair and medics).

Thanks mate. I had not heard the term Fd Trg Sqn before to describe the BATUS tanks, but then I did not ever serve there and I have been out of the mob for 15 years.
Whilst ‘the User’ makes a case for the equipments they need, invariably that is cut down by politicans/HMT. The number of tanks that are procured are categorised as for: the Field Force (ie the armoured regts); the Trg Org; the Repair Pool; the Attrition Reserve – the latter two being held in Ashchurch.
Army HQ may want to play musical chairs with the Field Force allocation to fit in with Whole Fleet Management or for other reasons, thus not all 56 tanks might sit with an armoured regt in peacetime and some are held in depot in CHE and some might have been sent to establish the BATUS fleet.

However it won’t be the case that there isn’t a Repair Pool (not a REME thing at all, it is a pool for units to draw on if they have lost a tank or two to the Base Overhaul programme for instance). It won’t be the case that there isn’t an attrition reserve – that is provided for and very necessary. There will be CR2s on the active list (213) in Ashchurch – Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve – plus those tanks on the inactive list.

As for the tanks deemed not operationally ready in that March 2023 snapshot report (213 minus 154) – it is normal jogging that not every single piee of kit is available all the time. Typically about 70% of the tanks are ready to deploy and 30% are not. It does not mean that MoD is stopping those 30% from being rendered fully serviceable – they will be unserviceable generally because of a (temporary) lack of REME labour or spares. It does not mean they are fit for the knackers yard and should be scrapped and/or that they could not be converted to CR3s (if money permits).

I would be more optimistic if IR23 and DCP had taken on board that we need more tanks.

Spot on Graham, options for change was far from a carefully considered defence review, it was just a series of savage cuts, pure and simple….

I had a mate in the Army at the time, he said the only upside of it was an opportunity to get shot of deadwood in the Battalion.

Each Company suggesting names of folks who had generally been a right pain in the arse over the years, recommended for the Royal order of the boot….

The RAF in particular, suddenly found itself in possession of a fleet of single role aircraft utterly focused on strike in the European central front, when they actually needed a good solid multi role fighter like the F16 for the post cold war period.

The Options for Change defence review did look carefully at the new geo-strategic world, given the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, the emergence of democratic West-leaning countries in eastern Europe and concluded unsurprisingy that significant reductions in our forces were required.
Total manpower was cut by approximately 18 per cent to around 255,000 (leaving the following strengths – 120,000 army; 60,000 navy; 75,000 air force).

Troop strength in Germany was halved but not totally axed: a single armoured division was kept in Germany. The RAC reduced from 18 regiments to 10. The Guards went from 8 battalions to 5. Many other Inf bns cut. RA lost 2 regiments. etc etc

DD/FF cut from 50 to a mere 40

RAF largely just lost a lot of really old stuff and the manpower that operated and supported it – ageing Bucaneers and ancient Phantoms, Victor tankers and Bloodhound SAMs. But also 3 Nimrods were taken out of service, leaving a mere 32 MR2s! They closed 2 stations in Germany, but still retained 2 other stations there.
—————

My point was not really that ‘Options’ was extreme and unwarranted, just that it shocked many service folk, but it was done to match the drastically reduced threat from Moscow and her eastern European Commnits allies.

However, subsequent defence reviews were just savage cuts to save money and were not justified by any reduction in threat. Arguably the regional threat ‘just beyond our backyard’ actually increased dramatically from 1991 onwards to the present day (Saddam Hussein’s regime ’caused’ two Gulf Wars; instability and civil war in the Balkans caused several British deployments in the 90s; the growth of international and cross-border terrorism led to operations against AQ and their Taliban backers and the Houthis etc – and more recently resurgent and bellicose Russia poses a substantial latent threat to European security).

Absolutely Graham, my main issue with Options for change was that it simply didn’t take into account the equipment needed on post cold war period.

At least the Navy and Army had adaptive assets.

As said, the RAF totally lacked a capable swing role fighter in shape of the F16/18.

They had comparatively large fleets of single role strike aircraft, or a dedicated bomber interceptor, in the shape of the Tornado F3.

A Bae proposal to Japan on the 1990’s of a multi role platform based on the Tornado F3, creating a European Strike Eagle type aircraft, would have been perfect solution for the RAF.

An F3, with the Sea Harriers Sea Vixen radar, upgraded engines and airframe and able to carry a mixed AA/AG combat load would also have potentially sold well.

An affordable solution for the RAF of the early 90’s, using airframe assets already owned and a radar already in service.

Another missed opportunity.

I think some would disagree that the RAF was exceptionally badly hit by Options for Change (the defence review of summer 1990 to reset the forces post-Cold War) – as I saai mostly they lost very old equipment (and associated manpower) and did some rebasing, but still kept 2 bases in Germany.
They had a whopping great 4 types of fast jet – Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom and Tornado (GR1 and F3 ADV). Under Options, they lost the oldest platform – Phantom (a 1950s design) the older ones which had been in service with the RAF for 22 years!
I am not aware that the RAF ever lobbied for either the F-16 or a F-18, both very different aircraft, due to the loss of Phantom. Did they?
The Typhoon was being developed and would enter service ajust over a decade later – “On 1 September 2002, No. XVII (Reserve) Squadron was reformed at Warton as the Typhoon Operational Evaluation Unit (TOEU), receiving its first aircraft on 18 December 2003”.
What was the RAF unable to do with Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado (both variants), until Typhoon came into service…and did it matter…the Cold War was over. The Gulf War happened very soon after Options and the RAF gave a good account of itself with the equipment they had.

I thought this site was about military matters.

No it’s not. The editor/founder of this site permits topics about Scotland and its political future – check the current index. So the analogy by Jacko is perfectly legitimate.

Money spent because the government can’t process asylum applications , Legitimate it may be but I happen to disagree with it and their have been far more cash wasted by this government, eg HS2 to appease the Nimbies, garden Bridges, Thames airport, Covid PPE procurement

Well said!

Built a Bridge across the Chanel to make it less risky ?

Which typo?

Are you out of your mind? there are a lot of examples.

Maybe you should learn to search…

His claim was posted three days after the attack and was quite explicit about a LBGT group endorsing the initial attack. I checked and there was nothing.

Since then various LBGT groups have called for ceasefires but a, that was subsequent to his claim and b, a different thing.

I checked thoroughly, I think he made it up. That’s why for four months he has refused to give a source or reason for keeping shtum.

Was that the Article that had 70 posts removed ? ….. I didn’t see what was posted but in the morning, 70 comments had been deleted leaving just 30……

There have been several posts like that on here. They tend to be ones where the usual extreme right posters have made various dodgy comments, the debate has become heated, the mods close it down, either on their own initiative or because of complaints.

I do not think it was one of those. The question stood for almost a week with no reply during which he was active on the site. Then someone complained, perhaps a friend covering for him, and the thread was deleted.

Depends on the period.
Pre 2010 there were 5 heavier Brigades.
1st,4th,12th Mech and in Germany, 7th and 20th Armoured.
All had Armoured Regiments. So 5 total.
After the ludicrous 2010 cuts the army reduced to 3 heavy Brigades – 1st,12th,20th, all in 3 UK Division and now termed
“Armoured Infantry Brigades”
All had an Armoured Regiment, so 3 total.
This remained the situation until the 2015 A2020 Refine review which decided we needed Strike…the catch was/is, one of our Armoured Brigades would be converted and would not need Tanks.
So 12 and 20 Bdes remain, with the 2 Tank Regiments. A 3rd, the Kings Royal Hussars, is still about because Ajax was delayed and it did not convert yet, even though 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade reduced from armour to the DRSB, but is still due to despite all evidence saying it is a mad idea.
That is the timeline and I hope it makes more sense. It is difficult to follow and make sense of unless you’re a saddo like me who tracks this stuff. 😄

I am sure they do.

Really? Could’ve fooled me.